On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:13:20 -0500 Nicholas Hartmann
(polyglot@execpc.com) wrote:
> So how do I retain this same "look" in a digital context? I've received
> encouraging replies about the Canon and (especially) Nikon 4000 ppi
> scanners, but I wanted also to check with the experts here. Let's
> assume I
> have the latest version of Photoshop and a vigorous desire to learn to
> use
> it; also a fast Macintosh with plenty of RAM; also an Epson 870 printer
> that I will use until a mature B&W ink/paper situation gets shaken out.
The trouble is that there's a degree of ineffability about trying to match
your expectations with a final digital image and the best route to get to
it. The scanner you choose will have shortcomings of its own (not may
have, will have) and these may or may not be perfectly acceptable, or even
enhance the image if you happen to like the result. Or it may leave you
disappointed. Specifically you are going to get some alteration of grain
pattern, because what the scanner records will be a result of grain
recorded by a matrix of pixels. This may be slight or quite violent, and
the only way to find out is to try it. B&W silver based films are much
more touchy than others.
Unfortunately I have no direct experience of these scanners, and though I
know TMax400 well enough, I can't begin to guess how it - exposed and
processed as you like it - will interact with them.
Inkjet printing also adds its own layers of distortion, or alteration.
There are so many variables here that they drive me crazy - have a poke
around Jon Cone's www.inkjetmall.com for a glimpse of the intimidating
breadth of choice.
I'm just a bit worried because if you really, really like your toned FB
prints, whatever you get out of the end of this process will be different.
I have certainly seen beautiful B&W digital prints, but they are on their
own terms, and in their own way as different from toned bromide as
platinum or cyanotypes.
Regards
Tony Sleep
- Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner
info & comparisons
